Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialA needle-free jet-injection system with lidocaine for peripheral intravenous cannula insertion: a randomized controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.
Insertion of a peripheral IV cannula is a common, although painful, procedure. We tested the analgesic efficacy, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of a needle-free intradermal drug delivery system (Jet) with lidocaine for the insertion of an IV cannula (18-gauge; dorsum of hand). Four-hundred patients were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (a) no treatment, (b) Jet (J-Tip), National Medical Products Inc, CA; $3.0 per device) with 0.5 mL of saline, (3) Jet with 0.5 mL of lidocaine 1%, and (4) Jet with 0.5 mL of lidocaine 2%. Pain was evaluated using a numerical verbal scale (NVS 0-10). A NVS < or =3 was considered as acceptable in this context. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Without treatment, 42.4% of patients had a NVS < or = 3, 39.3% with saline, 60.7% with 1% lidocaine (relative risk [RR] compared with no treatment, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.93), and 86.7% with 2% lidocaine (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62). Nineteen and one-half percent of patients had a NVS >3 because of Jet treatment, 13.5% had local hyperemia, and 16.9% had minor local bleeding. Of all Jet treatments, 10.5% were technical failures, and there were 17.6% cannula insertion failures (10.1% without treatment [RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.92-3.32]). Compared with no treatment, costs to generate one additional patient with a NVS < or =3 were $23 with lidocaine 1% and $10 with lidocaine 2%. On insertion of an IV cannula on the back of the hand, 58% of patients report at least moderate pain. Lidocaine-Jet is analgesic; there is dose-responsiveness. However, Jet treatment is not painless, and costs incurred to achieve one success compared with doing nothing are not negligible. ⋯ Insertion of an IV cannula is painful. Four-hundred patients were randomly allocated to test the analgesic efficacy, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of the needle-free intradermal drug delivery system (J-Tip); Jet). Jet with lidocaine is effective, but its application is not painless. Costs to achieve one patient with no more than moderate pain (numerical verbal scale < or =3 of 10) on insertion of an IV cannula are $10.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialAdvancing the tracheal tube over a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope by a sleeve mounted on the insertion cord.
The advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) over a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) is often impeded at the glottis. This is attributed to the creation of a cleft by the difference in the outer diameter of the fiberscope and the internal diameter of the tube. We designed a conical-shaped polyvinyl chloride sleeve to fit the insertion cord. This report compares the ease of advancement of the tube over a sleeved versus a nonsleeved bronchoscope. General anesthesia was induced, and one anesthesiologist introduced the FOB (a 3.8-mm Olympus LF2). Patients were randomly assigned to undergo tracheal intubation with the regular bronchoscope (25 patients) or the sleeved bronchoscope (25 patients). The FOB was advanced to approximately 1 cm above the carina. A blinded operator advanced the tube over the bronchoscope. The ETT was successfully advanced over the nonsleeved bronchoscope into the trachea on the first attempt in 64% of the patients, whereas tracheal intubation succeeded from the first attempt in 96% of patients when the sleeved FOB was used (P < 0.05). Advancement of the ETT over the fiberscope can be facilitated by using a conically shaped sleeve mounted on the insertion cord. ⋯ This report shows that a conical sleeve mounted on the insertion cord of a fiberoptic bronchoscope will facilitate advancing the endotracheal tube into the trachea.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparative study of three warming interventions to determine the most effective in maintaining perioperative normothermia.
Perioperative hypothermia poses a challenge because of its deleterious effects on patient recovery. The current practice of applying two cotton blankets on patients during surgery is thought to be less ideal than using reflective insulation or forced-air warming. We studied 300 patients who underwent unilateral total knee replacement and were randomized equally to three groups: (a) the two-cotton-blanket group, (b) the one-reflective-blanket with one-cotton-blanket group, and (c) the forced-air-warming with one-cotton-blanket group. Tympanic temperature readings were taken before surgery in the induction room, on arrival at the recovery room, and at 10-min intervals until discharge from the recovery room. On arrival at the recovery room, the forced-air-warming group had significantly higher temperatures (adjusted for sex, age, and patient's induction room temperature) of 0.577 degrees C +/- 0.079 degrees C (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.427-0.726; P < 0.001) and 0.510 degrees C +/- 0.08 degrees C (95% CI, 0.349-0.672; P < 0.001) more than the reflective-blanket and two-cot-ton-blanket groups, respectively. The forced-air-warming group took a significantly (P < 0.001) shorter time of 18.75 min (95% CI, 13.88-23.62) to achieve a temperature of 36.5 degrees C in the recovery room as compared with 41.78 min (95% CI, 36.86-46.58) and 36.43 min (95% CI, 31.23-41.62) for the reflective-blanket and two-cotton-blanket groups, respectively. The reflective technology was less effective than using two cotton blankets, and the forced-air warming was most efficient in maintaining perioperative normothermia. ⋯ Perioperative hypothermia has deleterious effects on patient recovery. We found in patients having knee surgery that reflective technology was less effective than using two cotton blankets, whereas active surface warming with the forced-air method was most effective in maintaining normothermia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of a left-sided Broncho-Cath with the torque control blocker univent and the wire-guided blocker.
Lung isolation can be accomplished in two ways: the first, a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) and the second, a bronchial blocker (Univent or Arndt blocker). Previous studies have found that the DLT and the Univent are comparable when providing lung isolation. A new bronchial blocker, the wire-guided endobronchial blocker (Arndt blocker), has been introduced. However, there is no study to report its effectiveness with lung isolation during elective thoracic surgical cases. Therefore, we designed a prospective, randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of lung isolation among the 3 endotracheal tubes: the left-sided DLT Broncho-Cath Group A (n = 16 patients), the torque control blocker Univent Group B (n = 16 patients), and the wire-guided Arndt blocker Group C (n = 32 patients). The following variables were recorded: 1) time to initially position the assigned tube, 2) frequency of malpositions, 3) frequency of use of fiberoptic bronchoscope, 4) overall surgical exposure, and 5) tube acquisition cost. The Arndt blocker took longer to place (3:34 min/s) compared with the other 2 groups: the DLT group (2:08 min/s) or the Univent group (2:38 min/s) (P < 0.0004). There was no statistical difference in tube malpositions among the three groups: two for the DLT group, four for the Univent group, and nine in the Arndt group. Excluding the time for tube placement, the Arndt group also took longer for the lung to collapse (26:02 min/s), compared with the DLT group (17:54 min/s) or Univent group (19:28 min/s) (P < 0.0060). Furthermore, unlike the other two groups, the majority of the Arndt patients required suction to achieve lung collapse. Once lung isolation was achieved, overall surgical exposure was rated excellent for the three groups. Acquisition cost for the DLT group was $1663.20 (21 tubes opened), $2329.00 for the Univent group (17 tubes opened), and $3567.00 for the Arndt group (33 wire-guided blockers opened). This study demonstrates that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. For elective thoracic surgical cases, once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three tube groups. ⋯ We compared the latest design of double-lumen tubes Broncho-Cath, Univent, and Arndt blockers during lung isolation. Our results show that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. Once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three devices.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe analgesic effect of interscalene block using clonidine as an analgesic for shoulder arthroscopy.
Used as the sole analgesic, clonidine produces analgesia after central neural blockade and intraarticular injection but not after axillary block. In this study, we sought to determine whether interscalene clonidine induces analgesia for shoulder arthroscopy. Forty patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy were prospectively included in this double-blinded study. Using a nerve stimulator technique, an interscalene catheter was inserted. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. The interscalene group (n = 20) received clonidine 150 micro g in 15 mL of saline through the catheter and 1 mL of subcutaneous saline, and the systemic group (n = 20) received 15 mL of saline through the catheter and clonidine 150 micro g (1 mL) subcutaneously. All patients underwent general anesthesia for surgery. On completion of arthroscopy, all patients received, via a patient-controlled analgesia, on demand a bolus of 8 mL of ropivacaine 0.2% through the catheter with a 1-h lockout period. Postoperative pain was measured every 4 h using the visual analog scale (VAS) for 24 h. Additional postoperative analgesia was available with parenteral nalbuphine if required until VAS < 3. VAS scores in the recovery room were significantly higher in the systemic group compared with the interscalene group (P < 0.0001). Analgesic duration was significantly longer in the interscalene group (P < 0.00001), and ropivacaine consumption was significantly less than in the systemic group (P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed between groups for nalbuphine consumption. Side effects were comparable in the two groups. ⋯ Clonidine administered via an interscalene catheter enhanced analgesia compared with systemic administration. Nevertheless, the adverse effect of clonidine at this dose limits its use for routine management for postoperative analgesia.